30. Eventuality. Individuals who have this organ large are attentive to all that happens around them, to phenomena, to events, to facts; they are fond of history and of anecdotes ; are inquisitive, and desire information on every ^branch of natural knowledge. Individuality takes cognisance of things which are, the names of which are nouns; and eventuality, of things which happen, the names of which are verbs. The organ is situated in the middle the forehead, and those in whom it is much developed have a peculiar prominence of this part of the skull.
31. Time.—The faculty of time conceives the duration of pheno mena, their simultaneouaness or succession. Its organ is situated above the middle of the eyebrow.
32. Melody or Tune. —The organ of tune bears the same relation to the ears as that of colour does to the eyes. The ear is the instrument by which sounds are heard, but it has no recollection of them, and does not judge of their relations; these are the offices of a peculiar and original mental power, whose organ is above the outer part of the eye brow, so that when much developed, it enlarges the lower and lateral part of the forehead.
33. Language.—This is the faculty which makes us acquainted with arbitrary signs, which remembers them, judges of their relations, and gives a disposition to indulge in all exercises connected with words. Its organ was the first that Dr. Gall discovered r In his youth he observed that while he had great difficulty in committing his lessons to memory, there were many boys who could easily learn by heart even things which they did not understand so well as he did. He noticed that all these boys were " bull-eyed," that is, had a peculiar pro minence of the eye-ball, which seemed to project from its socket. Subsequent observation enabled him to confirm the opinion that the organ of verbal knowledge is situated at the very back part of the orbit, which is, with the eye, pushed forward by it when it is much developed.
34. aniparis,a is the reflective faculty which compares the sense thins and ideas excited by all the other faculties, and points out their difference, analogy, similitude, or identity. It induces men to argue from analogy, to draw illustrations of their subjects from things well known, to speak by parables, and explain by example. and similes. It leads to the invention and employment of figurative language, and according to the degree of its national development, the language of each country will be full of or deficient in figures and meta phors. Its organ is situated in the middle of the upper part of the forehead.
35. reflective faculty which engages men in the study of the causes and origins of things, and which guides to the employment of processes of induction, is thus named. The faculty of individuality makes us acquainted with objects ; eventuality, with facts ; comparison, with the analogy, identity, difference, and other relations of things; and causality leads ns to search for their causes : together, these faculties, when fully developed, constitute the truly philosophic mind. The organ of causality is at the upper part of the orehead, on each side of comparison, and their coincident development gives the peculiar fullness of the front of the head, which is universally regarded as the sign of a powerful reasoning intellect.
having now given a general view of the principles of phrenology, as stated in the writings of Dr. Spurzheim, and adopted by most of the present advocates of the system, it will probably be dsxirabIll to con sider how far it is what it " professes to be, a system of philosophy of the human mind, founded on the physiology of the brain." (Ctmbe, `System of Phrenology,' p. 1.) Neglecting for the present all meta physical views on the subject, and regarding the theory of the existence of some such primary faculties of the mind as are assumed in phrenology, and of the dependence of each upon a separate portion of the brain, as one deserving of being tested by observa tion, we will examine only how far the doctrine, as it now stands, is supported by facts of anatomy and physiology, and whether it is capable of being established by the evidence of craniological investigation.
Many of the objections commonly made against phrenology are undoubtedly of little weight : ench for example are the statements that in consequence of the irregularities of thickness in the coverings of the brain, it is impossible to determine its form by examination of the exterior. This objection only shows that there aro sources of fallacy in the practice of craniology, a fact which no phrenologist denies. But on the greater part of the head, the differences of thick ness of the coverings of the brain are not such as would lead into error; the majority of them are nearly constant in their amount, and are easily recognised by any one acquainted with the anatomy of the skull, and the rest are not sufficient to give that degree of elevation or depression to any part of the exterior of the head which would be regarded as indicative of excessive or deficient development of any organ. No one accustomed to post modem. examination can hesitate to admit that the form of the greater part of the exterior of the head corresponds as nearly with that of the surface of the brain as is neces sary for craniological purposes. The parts in which the correspondence is often inexact are those over and in the neighbourhood of the eye brows. The thickness of the impel-ciliary ridge of the frontal bone is variable, and would certainly in some cases make a moderately developed organ appear large; and still more the size of the frontal sinuses (the cavities between the two plates of the frontal bone immediately above and by the sides of the root of the nose) must always be a source of fallacy in determining the size of that part of the adult brain in which the organs of form, Individuality, size, and weight, and.part of that of locality are supposed to be placed. The estimate of the supposed organ of language also, which is indicated.by the prominence of the eye, must be liable to error from the varying quantity of the contents of the orbit. From these several circum rtances however the utmost objection that can be raised is, that there must in general be some difficulty in determining the size of these few parts of the brain. In consequence of disease also the whole or parte of the brain may diminish in size without being accompanied by any corresponding change in the external form of the skull.* But as a general rule the subjects of disease are excluded in phrenological observations. The objection that parts of the brain have been destroyed without affecting any of the faculties of the mind is also of little weight, unless it be first proved that the organs are not double. The cases of this kind recorded before the promulgation of phrenology cannot fairly be deduced as evidence, because the statements which they coLtiiii !dative to the preservation of the mental faculties after injuries of the brain, regard only the general powers of sensation, volition, memory, imagination, &a., and not the primary faculties of phrenologists, some of which might have been deficient without their loss being observed. The observations that have been made since, it must be confessed, are not of more weight against phrenology, than those of the loss of peculiar faculties (especially those of language and ametiveness) by injury and disease of the brain are in its favour.